Simon's "Fish Plate Friday" menu is a hit with customers! To keep up with demand, he makes the long trek from State A to Big Lake, which is located in State B. State A and State B have a reciprocal license agreement that allows residents of each state to fish the other state's waters. The statute reads as follows:

State A License Agreement with State B

State A has a license agreement with State B. This agreement recognizes fishing licenses of the two states on the waters of Big Lake.

As Simon sets out for his fishing trip to Big Lake, he is able to purchase only a small quantity of live minnows from his favorite State A bait shop. He plans to buy more live minnows once he arrives at the Big Lake bait shop in State B.

To Simon's dismay, the Big Lake bait shop is sold out of live minnows, and the store clerk advises him of the prohibition against using State A live minnows because they may carry parasites. The clerk then shows him a recent news article written by a State B fish pathologist discussing the prohibition.

Simon is very upset about the State B law because he purchased his minnows from a reputable dealer, and State B cannot prove that his minnows are unhealthy. He feels the blanket prohibition on State A minnows is unfair and places an undue burden on interstate commerce. Simon is particularly upset because he stands to lose a lot of money if he cannot meet customer demand for his "Fish Plate Friday" promotion.

Simon believes the law violates the Interstate Commerce Clause. He asks your opinion about the law.

Questions: What constitutional power is the state using to justify its regulation regarding bait?